search_admin_appeals

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects. The description only describes the tool's function without behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with relevant details, but it includes a parenthetical reference to an internal code (W2.5) that may not be clear to all users. It is relatively concise but could be more streamlined.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a search tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the domain and usage context. It mentions follow-up tool and example keywords. However, it lacks information about pagination, result format, or any limitations, which would be useful for completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description adds example keywords and context (e.g., PIPA violations) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The examples are helpful but not critical.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a search for administrative appeal precedents (행정심판 재결례 검색) from a specific source (법제처 lawSearch · target=decc). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_admin_appeal_text by indicating that tool retrieves the full text. The verb '검색' and the resource are specific.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly recommends using get_admin_appeal_text for full text after searching, providing a clear workflow. It also gives context about the types of cases covered (PIPA violations, administrative dispositions). However, it does not specify when not to use this tool compared to other search tools like search_admin_rule.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.